Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Their number is unknown yet is growing all the time. Most are thrown into cells which can hold up to 60 persons, where there is so little sleeping space some prisoners have to bed-down according to a rota and those on remand are shackled in chains for court appearances. Their crime? They’ve breached Thailand’s draconian 112 law, more commonly known as lese majeste, where any act deemed to insult or defame the monarchy, even made in private to a third party, can result in decades in prison.
Take the case of Amphon Tangnoppakul aka Ah Kong, the 62 year old retired cancer-suffering truck driver from the staunchly working class district of Samut Prakan just outside Bangkok who died in May 2012. His case initially drew worldwide attention after being sentenced to 20 years in prison for sending four SMS text messages deemed to be in breach of 112 to an assistant of former Thai PM and present leader of the Democrat Party, Abhisit Vejjajiva.
And while Amphon’s case and recent death grabbed the international headlines, plenty more haven’t. There’s journalist and left-wing political activist Somyot Pruksakasemsuk and Surachai Saedan, the leader of the Red Siam radical socialist movement, both of whom are awaiting trial on numerous counts of lese majeste that may result in decades-long prison sentences. Then there are others like computer programmer Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul who is serving a 1 3year sentence for being involved with a Red Shirt website and Nat Sattayapornpisut (recently released) who discussed the monarchy in private emails sent to an activist in Spain and who received 3 years. There are many more lese majeste victims awaiting trial or investigation some for offences such as not standing up for the King’s song in a cinema while others are facing enquiries based purely on unsuitable body language.
Yet, these developments aren’t recent and have been part of a process of ramping up of lese majeste cases that got under way in 2008 and escalated rapidly during the previous Abhisit-led regime. In many cases those targeted with lese majeste laws have been Red Shirt activists and supporters of ousted PM, Thaksin Shinawatra. The claim, according to UK-based freedom of expression advocates, ARTICLE 19, is that the lese majeste law has been used to “target political opponents”. This “politicisation” of the LM law is something the existing prisoners are fully aware of.
In a series of interviews in a Bangkok prison, several lese majeste prisoners stated that they considered themselves absolutely both “political prisoners” and “prisoners of conscience”. There were complaints that the international human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were ignoring them and had not taken any noteworthy action – no prisoner I spoke to had had any contact with either group despite several of them being incarcerated for years (at the time of interview this was correct – I understand that HRW may have visited some LM prisoners). However, all said that since the election of the Pheu Thai government in July 2011 conditions had improved. Prior to this the prisoners said they had been subject to beatings and intimidation by guards and other prisoners. “When Abhisit was Prime Minister things were really bad and PAD-supporting guards and prisoners [the PAD are the extreme rightwing, ultra-royalist faction more commonly known as the Yellow Shirts] would attack me,” one said. “Things have certainly improved since the new Pheu Thai government was elected in 2011.”
A statement smuggled out from prison also claimed that during the period when the previous Democrat Party government were in power the lese majeste prisoners had received death threats from members of that government, that medical treatment had been denied to them and that there had been incidences of forced/punishment labour and other widespread abuse. During this period of Democrat Party rule neither Amnesty or HRW conducted any monitoring of prison conditions for lese majeste prisoners and both, as will be revealed later in this article, actually refused on several occasions to properly address the issue of lese majeste. How these conditions and the failure of the international human rights NGOs to monitor these conditions effectively impacted on the health of the recently deceased Ah Kong has yet to be ascertained.
After the Pheu Thai Party won a landslide victory in the July 2011 election, Yingluck Shinawatra, sister to the former Thai PM, Thaksin Shinawatra – who was illegally removed from power in a 2006 military coup – has been installed as Thailand’s first female leader. Since that point Yingluck has had to contend with the worst flooding in living memory and plenty of sabre-rattling by Thailand’s notoriously coup-happy generals. This flexing of military power has been particularly vociferous when the issue of amending the 112 lese majeste law has been mentioned – reforms that were originally mooted when Yingluck first came to power.
“The military have been sending a very clear message via the media and other channels for weeks,” says prominent government party MP and secretary of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jarupan Kuldiloke. “If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup. This puts us in a very difficult position as we cannot create and amend laws in what would be the normal procedure for a democratically elected civilian government. The threats are very real.”
Red Shirt leader, Thida Thavornsate, reiterates Jarupan’s comments. “Pheu Thai are scared of a coup”, she said. “Remember that Thailand is a dual state and that the government doesn’t have control in the normal way. The civil service, the army and the courts are not under democratic control and are unaccountable. There is no effective rule of law and the army make continual threats. Pheu Thai are scared of the power of the army.”
Even a body of legal academics, known as the Nitirat Group, who have put together a package of very mild reforms to the lese majeste laws, have come under continued and threatening attacks from military and extreme rightwing groups. Under difficult circumstances Nitirat are maintaining their reform-led position yet a “pogrom” like atmosphere is developing, with the burning of effigies of senior Nitirat members on the streets of Bangkok and even the previously highly-regarded Thammasat University banning the group from meeting on their premises.
Nonetheless many are also criticising the present government for “back-sliding” on human rights after a number of Pheu Thai government figures said they would widen the crackdown on lese majeste. In addition a recent Human Rights Watch report attacks the government for failing to address the use of lese majeste and for extending this draconian law’s reach.
However, HRW have drawn a huge amount of criticism from prominent human rights activists and others in Thailand for both their lack of commitment to protecting human rights in Thailand and for comments attributed to HRW’s lead Thai-researcher Sunai Phasuk found in the wikileaks US Embassy cables. In these cables Sunai has a number of statements attributed to him that make clear his support for the 2006 military coup that removed a democratically elected government, that he is a “committed anti-Thaksin activist” and that he believes a significant element of the Red Shirts were “bent on using violence to topple the monarchy”, a claim for which he offers no evidence. Sunai is also cited just after the 2006 coup saying how “close” he is to Thai Army officers and that he “had always held the military in high regard for their sense of honor and dedication to the country.” Given that only two years previously the Thai Army had been video taped engaging in an appalling massacre in Tak Bai that left 87 dead, this is an astonishing statement for a human rights worker to be making.
On the issue of lese majeste Sunai is reported as saying in another cable that HRW wouldn’t support a Thai trade union activist being harassed with the lese majeste laws as the case was “unattractive” and “that association with the case would damage his ability to work as a human rights defender”. The trade unionist concerned, Jittra Kotchadet, said that she “wasn’t surprised” by HRW’s inaction as they “haven’t really done anything to support people in Thailand.” She also said that “HRW don’t act according to principle and seem to take sides in the political conflict. And for some reason they keep trying to link the Black Shirts to the Red Shirts [the armed element from the April/May 2010 protests that supposedly had links to the Red Shirts. The claims that links existed were recently undermined by a Bangkok Post journalist Wassana Nanuam who counter-claimed that, in fact, the Black Shirts were more likely a rogue element in the Thai Army]. Where is their evidence that they are connected? Not even the Thai state could produce any and no one has yet been arrested from this “element”. So why do HRW keep repeating this story?”
Prominent and highly respected Thai human rights activist, Kwanravee Wangudom, who spoke last year at the House of Lords about the deaths of unarmed protesters during the Abhisit regime’s brutal suppression of the Red Shirts in 2010, went further and questioned the factual basis for HRW’s lese majeste “backsliding” claims. Kwanravee said that the figures HRW have been using for their claim that lese majeste cases have increased under the present government are baseless. “The National Human Rights Commission [cited by HRW] doesn’t have any concrete information of the number of people charged with lese majeste,” she said. “By using these figures HRW are not presenting any verifiable evidence.” Internationally recognized lese majeste expert Dr. David Streckfuss agrees with Kwanravee’s assessment. “Most of the cases we have heard about in the last few months were initiated during the last [Abhisit] government,” he said. “I would doubt that the number of cases has risen under the new [Pheu Thai] government.”
Criticisms of the international NGOs lack of action on lese majeste and human rights abuses in Thailand, don’t end there. Amnesty International’s lead researcher, Ben Zawacki, has been repeatedly questioned regarding to comments he once made that appeared to defend the use of the lese majeste law. He was also queried for seemingly colluding with Abhisit-era Thai government officials when designating the Prisoner of Conscience status of one Thailand’s most infamous lese majeste prisoners, Da Torpedo. Furthermore, at the end of 2011 Zawacki told Bangkok-based reporter, Marwaan Macan-Markar, that “Amnesty is unfortunately not able to assign a number of political prisoners in Thailand since the 2006 coup.” Zawacki went on to say that “AI has “no plans” for a report to expose the number of people jailed in Thailand for LM.” And this line that Thailand’s political prisoners are hard to quantify or don’t exist at all has been parroted by the US State Department’s report on human rights in Thailand which states, point blank, “There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.”
One of Thailand’s leading academics and thinkers, Dr. Thongchai Winichakul, a former student radical who was present at the infamous Thammasat Massacre in 1976, has recently made very strong statements on the entire Thai human rights community’s failings on lese majeste and other issues in interviews he gave to me here and here.
In these interviews Thongchai questioned not only the ethics of both Amnesty and HRW but also pointed directly to both NGOs being politicized.
“For the first five year from 2005 onwards both AI and HRW were inactive, silent, and implicitly against the effort to fight this unjust law [lese majeste] and also to help victims of this law. The bottom-line was, in my opinion, that HRW and AI received most of their information from, and followed the views of, a group of local Thai human rights people who are dominated by anti-Thaksin activists. This group are very biased and lack the usual professionalism necessary to uphold human rights principles. They are too politicized and their politics seem to have clouded their views and judgments on human rights issues. Most of them supported the coup and a few senior human rights figures even joined the “tours” organized and financed by the coup regime to explain to the world the necessity of the coup. Their political biases blinded them from seeing the victims of the LM as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience because most of these victims are Thaksin supporters or at least anti-coup regime. Also many of the human rights lawyers became active supporters for the anti-Thaksin, PAD Yellow camp. And even today, these human rights activists and lawyers refuse to provide legal assistance to the poor families of Red Shirts supporters who have been victims of the Abhisit-regimes repressive use of LM laws and who were jailed since the violent crackdown in mid-2010.”
It is set against this entire backdrop that the present Yingluck Shinawatra-led government has recently opened a new political prison to house those incarcerated for crimes related to “politics”. All the lese majeste prisoners interviewed were keen to make it clear that they supported this move by the government and all considered themselves political prisoners. “We want political status,” said one, while nearly all of the prisoners also threatened to stage a hunger strike if they weren’t transferred to the political prison as soon as possible.
“One of the reasons we opened the new political prison was to make sure the security and safety of these prisoners could be maintained,” says Jarupan Koldiloke MP. “I also want to say that we are doing our best to make sure the lese majeste prisoners are moved there quickly. Hopefully this will take place soon.”
Thida Thavornsate also made it clear the Red Shirt leadership consider the lese majeste detainees political. “All the lese majeste prisoners are political prisoners and need to be moved to Laksi [the political prison]. Though I do have to say that there are still some problems with facilities at the new prison but we have to remember that the establishment were completely opposed to it opening at all.”
I was granted unique access to the new political prison and spoke to several of those incarcerated there, none of whom have been charged with lese majeste and all of whom were awaiting trial or appeals. “We are much happier here,” was the resounding message delivered during our interview with them. “We are all Red Shirts,” one said, “and while this government isn’t perfect, we know, unlike the last government, that it comes from a democratic election.” All these prisoners also spoke of prison “politicizing” them and that in the new prison they felt “more together as a group” and less “scared”.
On the failures of HRW and AI the prisoners said that neither organization “has helped us at all.” One said “Why don’t they monitor our cases?” and another “How can HRW say things are worse under the Yingluck government? Don’t they understand anything that has happened here?”
So where now for Thailand? The reforms that many consider necessary to return Thailand to full democratic normalcy appear to be hampered, under threat of force, by shadowy political forces while those usually relied upon to impart an independent account of what is going on in the country are seemingly politicized and failing to tackle key issues.
Yet, not all Thais are daunted by this. Some are ready for whatever lies ahead. “Let them stage their coup,” says Jittra Kotchadet. “Let the world see what is really going on here.”
Andrew Spooner is a journalist and commentator who blogs here. The research for this article was conducted entirely before the death of Ah Kong.
I really think …
… should read. It seems very important to me.
This guy is a loser before he gets on, let alone off, the blocks …
… he was sent to the parliament to fight for the peoples’ rights, not to serve at his convenience.
Gosh, I certainly hope that is true.
Here’s a list from PPT of some of those known imprisoned for lese majeste …
Ampol Tangnopakul – served a life term – died in prison, 8 May 2012
Daranee Charnchoengsilpakul – serving 15 years,
Wanchai Saetan – serving 15 years,
Tanthawut Taweewarodomkul – serving 13 years
Surachai Danwatthananusorn – serving 7.5 years,
Nat Sattayapornpisut – serving 4.5 years,
Suriyan Kokpuey – serving 3 years and 15 days,
Warawut Thanangkorn (or Suchart Nakbangsai) – serving 3 years,
Sathian Rattanawong – serving 3 years,
Joe Gordon – serving 2.5 years, and
Somyos Pruksakasemsuk – unconvicted, 1 year 26 days served as of 26 May.
0
0
> “… can result in decades in prison”
Any cases of anyone having spent decades in prison for 112?
0
0
While i see the importance to highlight the abuses of the lese majeste laws and the plight of people jailed for alleged violations, consistent refuses of bail for most of the detainees, the harsh sentences of convicted prisoners and also some of the more than questionable sentences, and also the the law itself, there are a number of issues in this article which i believe are strong flaws.
Foremost i see that the article becomes problematic when it turns into an almost personal vendetta against Sunai Pasuk from HRW. The quotes from the wikileaks embassy cables are highly selectively quoted, such as failing to mention the context of the full quotes, such as:
or:
So, no, Sunai was not a staunch supporter of the coup, as you like to accuse him off. He was a Thaksin opponent, which, at the time, was not an unreasonable position. A number of severe human rights violations did occur under Thaksin’s government, and ignoring those would be dishonest.
You next accusation that Sunai
without citing any evidence is also somewhat misleading. The full quote:
This statement of Sunai is used by the US embassy to confirm at the time UDD chairman Veera Musikapong’s statement to the embassy, which is, following:
In this case – both Veera Musikapong’s and Sunai’s assessments of the situation then was not too unrealistic.
You also continue to obfuscate the fact that indeed in 2010 armed militants operated under the Red Shirts. While you may not have seen that, quite a few journalists, including me, have had encounters with those militants during mess in 2010. I do not know anyhow what this rather complex issue has anything to do with the problems of the lese majeste cases. The insistence of HRW of the existence of the armed militants under the Red Shirts is based on fact. While there are many points to criticize in the HRW report of the 2010 mess (such as not including some of the most blatant incidents of soldiers firing at unarmed protesters) this is not one of them.
It is also wrong to state that none of those alleged armed militants were arrested by the state. Some were indeed arrested, are now out on bail, and wait for their cases to be tried at court, most likely later this year.
I would suggest to stick with the issues where you have done your research very well – and that is the plight of the lese majeste prisoners.
And there, i do miss certain aspects that should be included in such a story. Why do you not look into why especially the accused under the 112 laws are treated so harshly? Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
Could that maybe an explanation why people like Sunai have to act very carefully, and chose their timing wisely, and that Sunai’s by the cables quoted statement regarding Jitra Kongdej’s case that he:
could be influenced by aspects of the issue that you have so far failed to highlight, and could be more an issue of timing and strategy? As you can see – now HRW (and AI) is far more active in regards of article 112. Have you looked that there may be other reasons than you allege may be the reason why in back 2008 these organization may not have been able to deal with this issue than now in 2012?
Have you ever spoken with Sunai, and allowed him to clarify his position? Sunai is not unapproachable, as major political actors are at times, though i would not blame him if he does not want to talk to you after these highly personal attacks.
I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offenses. Isn’t that especially important after Thaksin’s Rajaprasong speech from Saturday, where he explicitly stated that “both sides love the monarchy and have to protect the monarchy”, positioning this as an important part of “reconciliation”?
Is it really only “shadowy political forces”, or are there open elements in this government as well that are not just in clear agreement with those “shadowy political forces”, but who freely and willingly will collaborate and try to prosecute any perceived blasphemer?
0
0
JFL
Thanks for your comment.
Jarupan is a “she” not a “he.”
I agree – in my view the govt should have moved as soon as they were elected to reform LM and to bring the Army under civilian control.
The latter, for me, is key to creating a sustainable Thai democracy.
What I would say is that if we solely focus on this democratically elected government as the source of Thailand’s predicament we are failing to fully analyse the inherent structural problems.
There is a dual state.
There is a ruthless and violent Army waiting in the wings ready to crush any element that seeks to challenge their power.
There is a judicial system ready to take political decisions, stage show trials, be very creative with how they implement laws etc
There is an NGO community willing to collude with ultra royalists and with coup-makers.
There is a foreign media corps who have abjectly failed to even note the conditions they report in never mind tell the truth.
So, yes, criticise the government. But to ignore the wider context is a failure.
0
0
Nick
Thanks for your comments.
First up the comments about Black Shirts are made by others, not me. You should take that up with Jittra or Wassana.
In case you didn’t realise before there are different and competing “versions” about 2010. Yours Nick is not the only one and Jittra’s views on the matter deserve to be heard as much as yours. In fact, in my opinion, probably more so. You can’t claim “ownership” of what happened anymore than any other eyewitness can – an “eyewitness” by definition is a single person so only sees events from their perspective. An overall, wider view can only be ascertained by looking at all the facts in the round. It is also clear that given HRW/Sunai’s anti-Thaksin position that they cannot be trusted to be impartial when compiling evidence. Yes, Sunai can of course be an anti-Thaksin activist and that might be understandable but to invoke that when working/representing HRW is a gross abuse of his position, is unethical, unprofessional and undermines all the other good work HRW do. In my view if he was working somewhere with a greater degree of accountability he’d be out of a job.
I disagree with your other comments regarding Sunai. If you see my exposing of him/HRW- as PPT did before and as Thongchai repeats as well – as “personal” then how do we hold any individual to account? I’ve not attacked Sunai for anything other than his comments in the cables – that’s not a personal attack. Why didn’t Sunai state his anti-Thaksin position publicly? Why hasn’t he openly stated “I am an anti-Thaksin activist and that’s HRW’s position”? Why did he hide the fact that, yes, he was telling the US Embassy, and god knows who else, that he tacitly supported the coup? As for LM, given Sunai’s anti-Thaksin statements, why were they so silent during Abhisit years? Why didn’t HRW even speak to one single prisoner or monitor the appalling conditions the LM prisoners were being subjected to during Abhisit’s regime? Why did that change suddenly when PT was elected and for AI and HRW LM became a headline issue? Why are HRW ignoring the evidence that, in actuality, LM prosecutions are now less in number than before? Why did Zawacki/AI seek input from the Abhisit government when deciding not to give Prisoner of Conscience status to Da Torpedo? Why didn’t HRW admit that defending LM cases was so difficult for them? Why not just be public about their position? Why the endless obfuscation from HRW on their actual, secret positions on key issues? What about if there is another coup? Will they be secretly supporting that? Why can’t they be open?
These NGOs, like HRW, can’t claim others need to be accountable and transparent when they refuse to be so themselves.
And, in my view, you can’t equivocate about a coup if you believe in democracy.
And yes, I asked Sunai several times to clarify his comments. He refused to answer. From what I understand from others he’s spoken to is that he claims he “was misunderstood”.
I’d be more than happy to interview him and ask him to explain fully his comments. In fact, I’ve just fired off an email to him with that suggestion.
Let’s see how he responds or maybe he only talks to people who agree with him?
0
0
Nick
Am also very surprised you state this –
“Have you looked into the religious implications of this particular “law”, that this “law” might indeed be better looked at as an act that punishes blasphemy, given the position of the monarchy in Thai society, which recently has been described by M.R. Chakrarot Chitrabongs as:
“It is universally known that the Thai people believe that their sovereign king is a god-incarnate – the avatar of Lord Vishnu on earth to protect and look after the welfare of his people. Members of the Royal Family are also earthly manifestations of angelic beings from heavenly realms.””
The LM laws have an historical context and were ramped up significantly during the post-war period during successive military governments. LM’s purpose is both political and cultural and are also hegemonic. They are classic “state apparatus”.
These LM laws are also de facto a product of historical conditions as is the sacralisation associated with them. To ignore that is, to use your own word, an obfuscation.
0
0
Nick
You said –
“I miss also in this article concerns over this government’s position regarding 112, especially Chalerm’s many openly voiced statements to also crack down upon perceived offenders, and his “war room” to investigate lese majeste offences.”
It’s in the copy with two links (one link to Pundit’s in-depth look at Chalerm’s comments and another to HRW’s own report) in this par –
“Nonetheless many are also criticising the present government for “back-sliding” on human rights after a number of Pheu Thai government figures said they would widen the crackdown on lese majeste. In addition a recent Human Rights Watch report attacks the government for failing to address the use of lese majeste and for extending this draconian law’s reach.”
The point of this article was to broaden and balance everything else that’s been written/published so far. We know about Chalerm’s comments so I saw no real need to re-hash an old story. We didn’t know that other PT MP’s are claiming that the Army are threatening a coup if they reform LM. Surely you can see the value in that? Or should we only publish one. dominant and approved version of what is going on?
0
0
It is ironic that many believe that charities or NGOs are out there purely doing good, whereas many are just parasitic bureaucracies as corrupt and useless as the typical corrupt and useless government department. Hence the disappointment when they begin to come under scrutiny, how much of those donations were really internally absorbed and then wasted achieving nothing?
0
0
Nick
Sorry to keep coming back to your comment but it’s full of holes.
You claim that
“without citing any evidence is also somewhat misleading.”
Yet then include a quote that states “Sunai guessed that approximately 10 percent of the red-shirts were “radicals” bent on using violence to topple the monarchy.”
A guess, as I’m sure you’re aware, is not proper evidence. It’s just a guess.
0
0
Spooner is making up feeble excuses for the Yingluk Government. As Nick says, they have chosen to increase the use of LM and increased the budget for this. It is no secret that Yingluk and Taksin have done a deal with the military. No shadowy figures there! The LM prisoners are also NOT in the political prison. They were excluded. Yingluk and Taksin have also gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves with Prayut, Prem and now the King. The latter has been bought some land by the Shinawat family. The UDD has also been very quiet about LM. To understand LM you have to see it as a law which protects the military because the military uses the monarchy for its legitimacy. Even some right-wing figures like Anan Panyarachun say that LM is problematic. But Yingluk chooses not to. She also chose to visit Bahrain recently. PT and Taksin have no intention of amending LM. Taksin’s government used it before the coup. In the past Spooner has told me “to go back to Thailand and organise from prison” if I don’t like what Yingluk is doing. Given the fate of Somyot I won’t be doing that!
0
0
Giles
I state very clearly in the article that the LM prisoners are not in the political prison. Please go back and read the piece properly.
According to the persons mentioned in this article, Kwanravee Wangudom and David Streckfuss, there have been less charges under this government. To my knowledge these two persons are two of the best sources to go for this kind of information. If you have actual evidence to challenge that then please present it. Just saying it is so doesn’t make it so.
The article also explicitly looks at the military’s role in maintaining LM. That a Pheu Thai MP can state “The military have been sending a very clear message via the media and other channels for weeks. If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup” absolutely raises the issue you allude to when you state “To understand LM you have to see it as a law which protects the military.”
My comment to you regarding the prison was actually far more than that – as you know. It was in reply to your calls for people to organise against the PT government. All I did was ask how you intended to organise from your base in the UK and also pointed out that several political leaders, Nelson Mandela etc, have organised very effective political campaigns from inside a prison cell. That’s an historical fact. That comment seemed to upset you greatly. I should also point out a lot of Red Shirts managed to escape to Cambodia – have you thought about joining those that remain there and working with them?
I won’t be getting into some silly pissing contest about how much I am more committed to challenging LM than the next person. This is just an article where I bring in a range of different voices, offering a different perspective on things. If you can’t acknowledge that these different perspectives exist or that a wider context of power and how it operates exists that’s not really my problem.
What I personally found most interesting is that the actual prisoners themselves had a very nuanced view of the entire context of LM – far more, in my experience, than some of those campaigning on the outside. It was an education speaking to them.
The note at the bottom of this article states it was written before the death of Ah Kong. Therefore how on earth was I supposed to include comment on Thaksin’s gift of land to the Thai royalty? Unfortunately I am still unable to see into the future.
0
0
Dear Ajarn Ji,
I respectfully disagree with you that Mr Spooner is making a feeble excuse for Yingluck Government when he wrote:
[message]
“The military have been sending a very clear message via the media and other channels for weeks,” says prominent government party MP and secretary of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jarupan Kuldiloke. “If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup. This puts us in a very difficult position as we cannot create and amend laws in what would be the normal procedure for a democratically elected civilian government. The threats are very real.”
Red Shirt leader, Thida Thavornsate, reiterates Jarupan’s comments….“Remember that Thailand is a dual state and that the government doesn’t have control in the normal way. The civil service, the army and the courts are not under democratic control and are unaccountable. There is no effective rule of law and the army make continual threats. Pheu Thai are scared of the power of the army.”
[end message]
I do not know exactly whether the first paragraph is true or not, but I believe it is. As for what Thida said about Thailand’s government does not have control in a normal way, this is true and anyone who studies Thailand deep enough knows this fact.
Moreover, he quoted what Jarupan and Thida said verbatim, without making additional comments (or I might be wrong, as I only skimmed the article. Please feel free to correct me). I wouldn’t think the above two paragraphs are Mr Spooner’s ‘feeble excuse’.
However, you (I mean you, Ajarn Ji) are correct that Yingluck’s overly friendly act to the elites are insinuating to watch. Additionally, while they may not be able to amend LM, it is inexcusable that they intensify the LM crackdown and impose harsh penalties.
I believe it is time for the Reds to teach Thaksin a lesson. He needs to learn what will happen to him if he decides to turn his back against his supporters. If he chooses to be with the elites, deem him an elite and boycott him.
0
0
For Thailand’s sake, if anyone should “go back to Thailand and organise from prison”, I think it should be Thaksin Shinawatra.
0
0
The preferred criteria as stated by Asian C. for comments sent in (‘high quality comments that make original contributions…’) has me, as a first-timer, a little nervous about offering my humble thoughts! But anyway, it is just this : that while I find myself so impressed with, and much inspired by, the views expressed & issues argued here, I admit to some mild despair that those reformers who clearly agree on the core essentials (and with great integrity, I sense) , they seem bound to argue themselves – by dispute over details of debatable difference & importance – into positions of needless opposition.
I deserve to be accused of naivete. This stuff’s the flesh & bone of healthy debate, after all.
I suppose, after 20 years in the kingdom and frustrated to the gills with the place I’ve come to oddly ‘love’, I may perhaps have gone a little daft in the head in sheer, urgent desperation to see the ‘right’ changes come.
So it concerns me a little to see the likes of Giles Ungpakorn and Andrew Spooner, both of whom I have read much and greatly admire, seemingly at odds a little here, because for the life of me I can’t really see where their respective views part ways.
(Perhaps I’m not paying enough attention.)
0
0
Sorry, I meant New Mandala, not Asian C. Oops
0
0
It’s daily becoming more and more difficult to ignore the forces of darkness gathering in Thailand. To point out the hopelessness of relying in any way on the stooge government in place is not to ignore the wider context.
PPT had a shot of the HM the King in army fatigues, and looking very fatigued, at Ayutaya. The Commander in Chief?
Wasana, Royal Thai Army Gossip columnist for the Royal Thai Army Times (aka the Bangkok Post) had an article admitting elements of the army were responsible for the attack on the army at Dok Wua, which then was used as the excuse for the massacre that unfolded. That’s a message from the Royal Thai Army command. Purge Time in the Royal Thai Army?
Prem was on the front page of the Bangkok Post, giving voice to the perennial uniformed complaint of corrupt politicians. Springtime For Prem In Thailand?
The background of the ‘celebration’ of the write-off of Ayutaya farmland 16 years ago, coupled with the massive write-off in Phichit this year, while ‘cleverly’ identifying the policy of beggaring Thais to spare Bangkokians with their Majesties; the identification of the policy of dispossessing people from their land in Phetchaburi … where the director of the national park there brought lese majeste charges against the NHRC for standing up against that ‘royal’ dispossession … The first of wave of attempts to make totalitarian measures ‘royal’ and thus undebatable; and those who question them treasonous?
Thailand is definitely headed … rather the Royalist Bangkok ‘elite’ are desperately trying to head Thailand … for emulation of the North Korean totalitarian cultist state, to be ruled by their priesthood, the self-selected caretakers, guardians, and custodians of HM the King, whom they are rapidly degenerating into a royal fetish.
Yeah … there’s lots going on. Just reminding that the government is a solid part of the problem and not of the solution.
Time for Ta Sawang Ti Song.
0
0
To Andrew Spooner,
What you say about ‘all this’ always seems to make very good sense to me and I also applaud the determined way in which you say it!
Now beyond that bit of fawning praise (!) I must ask you please to share with us, if you can, your full understanding of the ‘nuanced view of the entire context of LM’ (as you put it, in posting #11 above) of the prisoners you’ve spoken to. Perhaps in a separate article.
Any authentic & faithfully ‘interpreted’ accounts of their experiences would have to be considered to be of great value.
0
0
Nganadeeleg
“For Thailand’s sake, if anyone should “go back to Thailand and organise from prison”, I think it should be Thaksin Shinawatra.”
Yep, he should’ve done that years back.
But, if he had, he would have been even more popular as his victimhood would’ve become almost sacralised.
0
0
JFL
I am deeply concerned that we’re heading back to the “Thaksin and all his works are evil” bullshit that the PAD/ASTV are so fond of.
Already Manager is quoting lines from “progressives” and “leftists” who have shifted against the Reds and gone back to the “Thaksin is evil” meme that only those of equal “evil” will ever dare counter.
0
0
jfl (c16):
“Wasana, Royal Thai Army Gossip columnist for the Royal Thai Army Times (aka the Bangkok Post) had an article admitting elements of the army were responsible for the attack on the army at Dok Wua, which then was used as the excuse for the massacre that unfolded. That’s a message from the Royal Thai Army command. Purge Time in the Royal Thai Army?”
Granted that Wassana clearly enjoys privileged access to higher echelons within the RTA, but surely she would have to be a recognised mouthpiece for the RTA to justify that use of the term “admitting”? I’m not aware of an article of hers making the assertion, but it was referenced in a review of her new book as follows:
“She offers an interesting insight into the shooting of soldiers at Kok Wua intersection on Ratchadamnoen Avenue in April last year by mysterious men dressed in black and armed with heavy weapons. The ambush, she says, was the result of a personal vendetta by an unspecified force of militants against Burapha Payak.
A senior army officer and several other promising members of this faction were killed in the incident and this so outraged their colleagues, Wassana says, that it led to the use of live ammunition, a few weeks later, when troops were sent in to disperse the red-shirt encampment in central Bangkok.”
http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/book/294362/factions-and-short-fuses
Plainly, the review is only a second-hand summary of the full original Thai-language book reference. If anyone has access to that original and can use it to show something that clearly rates as “admitting” then I’m sure many of us would be very interested to see it. Equally, while the speculation has been around for some time, I also readily grant that someone in Wassana’s position even proposing it lends major weight to its credibility.
Finally, in terms of “Purge Time”….. hasn’t Prayuth been actively doing that ever since he replaced Anupong – at least by further sidelining those he deems “not one of us”?
0
0
A very interesting piece, Andrew.
One that is clearly written in an attempt to admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.
It’s interesting the way in which you attack Sunai, directly commenting on Tak Bai but fail to mention that the incident took place during Thaksin’s administration (in fact Thaksin was alleged to have been directly involved in giving orders to the mitilary on the ground that day).
On you Facebook page you recently posted this: “The debate is now turning again. “Thaksin is evil, if you don’t agree with this 100% you too are evil.” Yawn.” But this is exactly that tactic you employ against other people, in fact anyone who comments on Thailand without mentioning the May 19 crackdown or for failing to call Abhisit a “butcher”.
You wrote above: “I won’t be getting into some silly pissing contest about how much I am more committed to challenging LM than the next person.” This is funny. You’ve spent most of the past couple of years doing exactly that.
What is of more interest, to me anyway, is how your analyses of events in Thailand have become increasingly partisan. These days they seem to be more concerned with painting PT in a favourable light than in supporting the red shirts, which is your self-proclaimed position.
Are yous serving another agenda these days? Did you have any special connections which you worked to get your “unique” access to the political prison which as Giles pointed out isn’t taking people on LM charges and is as such as spurious inclusion in your piece?
0
0
I think we need to stand aside a moment and detached from whatever baggage we have carried over from Thaksin’s time. Clearly, PTP are in a most vulnerable position as this piece indicates. Most of the underground and more politicised red shirts, including Aj.Surachai, do not blame PTP, and realise the dilemma they are in. The criticisms against HRW and para-statal NGOs in the last six years are fully justified. And of course we would all like to see justice and the military murderers get their comeuppance in court, but it aint that easy. We need to realise the limitations in which PTP (or any “democratically” elected party) are able to work, sometimes it is better to try and win tactically at multiple levels and then, when the opposition is least expecting it, deliver the coup de gr├вce (and an opening for the organised masses and its intellectual leadership to strike at the heart). All this talk of blaming is tedious…Instead, I’d rather like to see a discussion on how to present a united front against such extraordinary odds!
0
0
Jim, you raise some fair points, but I think you miss the point that PT as with every other political party in Thailand are concerned with increasing their own power and the best way of doing that is through the preservation of the status quo. Article 112, the Computer Crimes Act etc are all powerful weapons that they all want to have on hand. It’s a fallacy to imagine that even if PT reformed 112 they would usher in a new, pro-democratic culture in Thailand.
In terms of a united front? It’s hard to see anything will change in Thailand without a progressive, far-reaching counter-corruption campaign. Democracy cannot function without rule of law. Thailand’s democracy will not develop much until rich powerful people start getting lengthy prison sentences.
A successful campaign would win the support of the vast majority of Thai all of whom have ot deal with corruption and graft from police, school teachers, civil servants, etc etc. Unfortunatley any government that launched such a campaign would probably be ousted by the army. But in reality no political party in Thailand will do anything about corruption because they all benefit from it.
0
0
Greg
My “secret”connections? I asked Karom Ponpornklang, the renowned Red Shirt lawyer who represents Surachai, Somyot etc. Why dont you approach him and ask? Laksi prison is not the kind of off-limits secret army base that Abhisit sent the Red Shirts to in May 2010. To my knowledge anyone can visit.
Thaksin certainly has a responsibilty for Tak Bai but the military are the continuous factor from Sarit to May 2010, not Thaksin. For Sunai to be eulogising about them is a disgrace. It is the first I have read a claim he directly ordered the army to kill people there. Can you publish the evidence? Rumours you heard at the FCCT dont count.
More partisan? Damn. I obviously wasnt trying hard enough before. 😉
0
0
I said special not secret. Quite different. I only asked as you said your access was unique, which it appears it was not.
Kraisak Choonavan spoke at a panel at the FCCT shortly after the Tak Bai massacre and made clear and explicit allegations about Thaksin’s involvement. These were then reported in the press.
You may also want to refer to Panlop Pinmanee’s involvement in Tak Bai, Krue Sai and I think the Rohinga. He’s one of those nasty, shadowy military men, ran anti-communist death squads and moved over to support Thaksin after the coup.
On the issue of human rights you’ll note that Somchai Neelapaihit’s wife Achana has always found it very strange how Thaksin had explicit knowledge about her husband’s disappearance and murder (which Thaksin conveyed to her directly). Why and how would a PM know such things was extremely disturbing. She has made these comments public ally a number of times, including at the event to mark the 5th anniversary of her husband’s murder at an event held in conjunction with the International Commision of Jurists.
One of the great things the ICJ managed to bring off with victims of political violence in the south was to ensure their right to take legal action against the government wasn’t voided by accepting compensation. I’m sure you read about how outraged some of the family’s of victims of the May 19 crackdown were last week when the current PT-led government sought a waiver from further legal action from people who accept compensation.
0
0
Greg
At the time of my visit and interview I was given “unique” access at Laksi. I’m not sure if others have sought to speak to the prisoners at Laksi but they can approach Karom in the same way I did should they wish. If you believe that this is part of some kind of strange conspiracy or agenda I’d say you’ve got an over-active imagination.
Sorry but Kraisak Choonavan is not a credible impartial source. As I said before just quoting a rumour you heard at the FCCT is not evidence.
You’ve been misinformed – accepting the compensation for May 2010 hasn’t voided the victims right for other forms of legal redress. It has included a waiver, I believe, that they can’t make further compensation claims from the government. Which would be usual in most circumstances.
Your criticism of Panlop is spot on – people like him need to properly investigated and held to account. As does Abhisit, Thaksin, Prayuth, Prem, Suthep, the USA’s involvement in supporting Thai Military etc etc etc.
0
0
I’ve nerve liked Thaksin. Whether it was suing Suchinda for 430 million baht, disappearing Somchai, or the massacre at Tak Bai … I just don’t like the guy at all. I realize that a part of his cynical operation brought about 30 baht medicine for the Thai people and that they are very appreciative. I still don’t like him.
I realize the reactionaries are trying to capitalize on the split between democrats and Thaksin supporters, but I see no reason to stop being a democrat on that account.
It’s not all that unlike the situation in the USA where you have two parties without a dime’s worth of difference between them trying their damnedest to convince people there is difference between them.
It’s all a wretched waste of time. The real work of putting things right requires casting aside both Thaksin and the the more traditional royalist elite.
Thaksin killed nearly as many at Tak Bai as Abhisit did at Kok Wua and Ratchaprasong. He killed many, many more in his fake war on drugs. Much as Obama has killed many, many more in his fake war on terror than whomever it was who did the job on 9/11.
You cannot have change without changing. Thaksin … Abhisit … not a baht’s worth of difference.
And the Royal Thai Army is the de facto beneficiary of all of this just as the Pentagon is in the USA.
After the election last July there was political capital enough to have run the bastard military out of power. Thaksin pissed it all away. To hell with him and the Pua Thai. Too much blood sweat and tears have been wasted upon them already.
The task ahead is not easy but it will remain impossible as long as people delude themselves with visions of Thaksin … or Obama … being a part of the solution.
0
0
Greg
Also slightly confused.
You state, at the opening of your first comment
“A very interesting piece, Andrew.
One that is clearly written in an attempt to admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
And then state
“What is of more interest, to me anyway, is how your analyses of events in Thailand have become increasingly partisan. These days they seem to be more concerned with painting PT in a favourable light.”
Which is it?
Am I admonishing PT or painting PT in a favourable light?
I don’t mind being criticised but can I please request it is consistent from one paragraph to the next?
Thanks.
0
0
c25
“I’m sure you read about how outraged some of the family’s of victims of the May 19 crackdown were last week when the current PT-led government sought a waiver from further legal action from people who accept compensation.”
See second half of my comment at http://www.newmandala.org/2012/05/22/why-the-compromise-game/#comment-1075780
0
0
Andrew thanks for picking me up on a few points.
ie: “One that is clearly written in an attempt to admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
I apologize for this. Clearly reading your narrative equivalent of a badly stitched together patchwork quilt, one riddled with illoligisms and non-sequiters affected my own writing. It should read:
“One that is clearly written in an attempt to absolve not admonish PT for continuing to wield LM as a method of maintaining the status quo.”
Re: the compensation issue. You say that it is a waiver against recourse to future compensation, not future legal action. Are you defending that position?
“Kraisak Choonavan is not a credible impartial source. As I said before just quoting a rumour you heard at the FCCT is not evidence.”
So sources have to be impartial now? Are your red shirt and PT sources impartial? What a ridiculous thing to say. As for Kraisak being credible, well he is a senior senator, chairman of the Senate committee on Foreign Affairs at the time, so that would make him a credible source. Well it would for most professional news organisations.
As for quoting a rumour I heard at the FCCT. Well if I had overheard Kraisak making such a comment at the bar, that would be a fair comment, but given that he said this as a key speaker at an event organised and moderated by the club, in front of a room full of journalists reporting on the matter, and that he had just spent several days in Tak Bai interviewing people and questioning various sources, then his comments were of import.
Were his comments hard evidence? No. But I never said they were. Then again, when you write prominent government party MP and secretary of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jarupan Kuldiloke said, “If we try to amend 112 they will stage a coup.” That is not a fact (proven hard evidence), it is a comment or opinion from a credible news source, one which should be reported and one which may well be true.
Your article is allegedly about human rights and LM (according to its headline at least). You report that LM prisoners consider themselves political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, a fair and understandable position. You do not report that the PT government does not consider LM prisoners to be political prisoners. One might assume that they will never be considered as such by this or successive governments. You do however report on how PT have opened a new political prison which is treating inmates much better that the last government. Well that is a positive development (even if it’s motivated by their partisan support for the UDD), but it is in fact irrelevant, if as Ajarn Ji says, there are those facing LM charges/sentences will not be sent to the prison.
Why then do you include this in the article, given that it has nothing to do with LM. It does paint PT in a good light though doesn’t it?
0
0
Sorry, Supinya … I wrote Suchinda above for some reason. Thaksin sued Supinya Klangnarong for 400 million baht for reporting on his business deals and interests in 2003, back when Thaksin was trying his hand at media control Singapore style.
0
0
Greg
Compensation – standard practice throughout the entire world that if you accept compensation you sign a waiver acknowledging you won’t get more compensation. Obviously the person taking the compensation could take further action to secure more compensation and not accept the amount on offer. You claimed completely falsely it meant waiving right to further legal action.
Kraisak is not credible – that’s my view. Given your previous comment that all Thai politicians are “corrupt” it’s strange you’ve suddenly found a PAD-supporting senior Democrat you trust.
The article was about LM prisoners in the context of Thai politics and also addresses the question does Thailand have political prisoners and what were the LM prisoners position in relation to that? That meant looking at the recent opening of the political prison at Laksi. Sorry if that was all a bit too complicated for you. And surely you’re not suggesting I ignored that in a deliberate, biased attempt to paint the PT govt in a bad light? Also Jarupan is clear that she is behind moves to get the LM prisoners into the political prison. She’s a PT MP so if the govt don’t do that take it up with them not me.
0
0
Kraisak made the comments before the PAD was a twinkle in Sondhi Limthongkul’s eye. Therefore Kraisak’s support for the PAD has little to do with Tak Bai. That would be like claiming a UDD supporting PT MP was not a credible source because they support the UDD or because they are PT. They may be biased, but that doesn’t prevent them from being credible. Surely it must be possible to conduct political analysis and reporting at a level higher than the most facile of student politics.
Again, nothing you write is “too complicated”, convoluted maybe, but not complicated. I was genuinely surprised that your article didn’t ask why people on LM charges weren’t being incarcerated there. But it did have a nice glowing press release feel to it at the end.
You comment that research for the piece was conducted prior to Ah Kong’s death. So, okay, there’s no follow up with inmates to see how they feel now, what they think of conditions after his death. Whether they continue to be “much happier now”, which is still completely plausible. Given that you’re based in London, it’s fair enough logistically speaking, if not a little convenient given the frame and thrust of your overall piece.
Meanwhile, you make sure not to miss a chance to apportion blame on the Democrats or the evil NGO empire that is spearheaded by Amnesty and HRW:
“A statement smuggled out from prison also claimed that during the period when the previous Democrat Party government were in power the lese majeste prisoners had received death threats from members of that government, that medical treatment had been denied to them and that there had been incidences of forced/punishment labour and other widespread abuse. During this period of Democrat Party rule neither Amnesty or HRW conducted any monitoring of prison conditions for lese majeste prisoners and both, as will be revealed later in this article, actually refused on several occasions to properly address the issue of lese majeste. How these conditions and the failure of the international human rights NGOs to monitor these conditions effectively impacted on the health of the recently deceased Ah Kong has yet to be ascertained.”
You do, however, conveniently give the Phue Thai administration a hall pass.
Isn’t that a little odd given that Ah Kong was sentenced when PT was in power and that he died in prison when they were in power. I’m not offering any defence of the treatment of prisoners, LM or any others under the Democrats, but isn’t it a tad disingenuous to blame a government that had been trounced in elections several months before Ah Kong’s sentencing, and almost a year before his death for his treatment and lack of medical attention while incarcerated. Yes, point the finger over his initial arrest, but the rest of it? Come on.
Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on this issue than the government of the day? What was the rationale for pointing the finger at NGOs etc and not the present government, an administration which the article points out time and again is sympathetic and supportive of the red shirts, yet managed to allow the inmate who received such a devastating sentence for allegedly sending SMS to die in horrible conditions?
Was it shoddy journalism, laziness or intentional manipulation?
Given the highly-selective quotes relating to AI and HRW in the Wikileaks cables, the lack of any right to reply (if you contacted AI/HRW on this matter and they didn’t respond then you should have stated that. If you didn’t give them any right to reply then that is very slack, especially as you go after individuals rather than the organisations they work for) then it seems most likely to be the latter.
If it is the latter, have you ever thought about working as political lobbyist? Your skills could be put to good use.
0
0
Greg
1) Without documented evidence any PAD claim – even when judged retrospectively – should be considered dubious at best.
2) Yep, did ask Pheu Thai MP Jarupan why LM prisoners weren’t at Laksi. You can read her answer in the copy.
3) In all fairness you should ask foreign journalists and NGO workers living 20km from the prison why they didn’t visit LM prisoners. Where I live is an irrelevance.
4) Yep, Amnesty and HRW are responsible for their actions and have been part of creating context where mistreatment of LM prisoners became possible. Amnesty in particular have made a point about refusing to call either LM or UDD prisoners “prisoners of conscience” or “political prisoners”.
5) At the time I spoke to the LM prisoners all said conditions at prison improved after Pheu Thai took over. I only referred to their comments on that. If you have issue with those comments take it up with the prisoners.
6) Individuals should be accountable for their actions and this is even more paramount when they are in senior positions in large organisations that make claims for probity, impartiality and human rights.
7) Never thought about it. Does it pay well?
Keep trying Greg, when I get time I’ll be sure to reply.
😉
0
0
Greg
Sorry, slight correction. Just noticed that Amnesty referred to “some” LM prisoners as “prisoners of conscience” in their very recently released report. They won’t say which ones though. Which is pretty pathetic.
0
0
#34 Andrew Spooner
Just as a point of clarity and housekeeping, could you quote the questions you think or believe you are answering rather than numbering the aimless and unrelated ether.
Here is one from Greg Lowe you neither actually answered nor ethereally numbered, although you half obfuscated in rant numbered 4.
Greg Lowe “Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on this issue than the government of the day?”
Can you answer that, if it’s not too much trouble?
This also might be another one of your aimlessly numbered bullet rants from a fantasy London heat wave that could so with a bit more historical context….
Andrew Spooner “1) without documented evidence any PAD claim – even when judged retrospectively – should be considered dubious at best.”
Dubious at best? It was already just gently pointed out to you that the PAD was not in existence at this time and if you bothered to do your research you would understand that politics did actually exist in Thailand before either the PAD existed or you chose to start blogging (self sponsored barking) furiously from one London borough or another for God alone knows what reason…. And the situation remains highly complex historically with a great many seeming conflicts of interest within seemingly unified movements. What do you think happened to the activists of 1992 and where do you think they went and why and to what reason? And what happened to those they were opposing and to what reason were their actions directed and how were alliances from 2000 onwards formed?…. Then tell me about the ‘retrospective’ PAD or the ‘retrospective’ UDD…. Or the Chao Pho who never went away? …. Your use of the word ‘retrospectively’ is simply childish, maqnipualative and intensely ignorant
How far will your subjective fantasy go? In your vituperative absence a real country with real people does actually continue to exist in Thailand. How far does your bizarre, arbitrary and retrospective sword of justice stretch in ignoring all the facts and discounting all sources you do not consider to fit your template of a Thailand (or world) you feel you so studiously follow (on the world wide web) whilst actually just feeding an ill defined desire for invective ?…… Why not pick on Guatemala or Togo?
0
0
Thread has gone feral.
0
0
Keep on trying what exactly, Andrew? Trying to get a simple, straight answer to a simple, straight question?
Rather than answer questions that were not asked, or post statements in a way which clumsily attempt to misrepresent my comments, can you stay on topic and answer the question?
Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on LM in general, and Ah Kong’s death in particular, than the government of the day which was in power when Ah Gong received his sentence and was in power when he died in horrible conditions while incarcerated?
0
0
> “Any cases of anyone having spent decades in prison for 112?”
Okay I’ll try and answer my own question. I’ll go for nobody having spent decades in prison for 112. The longest sentence handed down so far has been 20 years but only around 18 months of that (incl time on remand) got served. (And I think estimates of 50-70 years are being bandied around for a couple of pending cases.)
Why should such a misleading assertion appear in the first paragraph? Is it a case of ‘rhetorical grooming’ – trying to slip in some tasty misinformation in the hope that it gets repeated enough and the the shock value will pique the interest of the so-far uninitiated? Or did the author simply not bother to fix up the sentence?
They say never attribute to rabble-rousing and misinformation campaigns that which is adequately explained by haplessness, but seeing as this is Spooner’s work I guess the truth of the matter could fall either way.
0
0
I believe the statement in the first para was: “can result in decades in prison.” Clearly a 112 conviction can result in sentencing for decades, although we know of no case where anyone has served that period. Amphon got 20 years. In his series of sentences, concluded yesterday, Surachai Danwattananusorn received a total of 25 years, reduced by half for his guilty pleas, made because he is 72 and doesn’t want to die in prison like Amphon. When you are over 70, even 12.5 years is likely to be a death sentence, if served in full.
0
0
Greg
“Rather than answer questions that were not asked.”
Tell you what – pull out the line from my story where I write “It is now certain AI/HRW are more responsible for Ah Kong’s death than the govt” and I’ll answer your question.
0
0
John Wright
Fair enough – better wording would’ve been “can potentially result in decades in prison”.
0
0
I’m sure that all of you have heard Ajarn Charnvit nail this question on radio Australia …
Thai academics to submit petition on lese majeste law
0
0
Marcus
In reply to comment 17…
i was in Thailand for 3months from Dec 2011 to Feb 2012 and visited the prison on 3 occasions and spoke to 7 different LM prisoners none of whom wanted comments directly attributed to them. The visiting time is short and most of my questions had to go through a translator and I was also visiting the prisoners at the same time as their family members whose time with the prisoners I considered more important.
Furthermore, as a “journalist” (blogger is a better description), I am not even supposed to be in there interviewing anyone and, at one point, I was rumbled by the prison guards and, with the aid of a member of the prisoners’ support network, had to smuggle my notes out.
So, difficult circumstances all round.
Yet, as described, all the prisoners expressed quite a nuanced understanding of the wider political situation and realised that forces other than just the Pheu Thai government were involved in perpetuating their situation. Jim Taylor references Surachai in comment 22 and I would say what Surachai said to me echo Jim’s comment.
As has been mentioned by a couple of commentators, I am based in London so when I am in Thailand, which tends to be roughly 5months a year, I have limited time. However, there are plenty of foreign “journalists” based full-time in Bangkok who could make a much better job of recording the views of the prisoners in full. Unfortunately, despite being only a 250baht taxi ride from the centre of Bangkok, very very few of the foreign media corps make it to the prison and speak to the prisoners.
0
0
“Andrew Spooner”
“Unfortunately, despite being only a 250baht taxi ride from the centre of Bangkok, very very few of the foreign media corps make it to the prison and speak to the prisoners.”
This is another rather polemic line of attack which is also not exactly true. As we are living in Thailand, prison visits to covertly interview lese majeste prisoners can turn quite problematic, and interfere with the renewal of our work visas.
There are much better and for all involved safer ways to talk with and interview people that are accused under article 112 than by prison visits under which conditions anyhow a proper interview is hardly possible. When, for example, defendants appear at court, it is possible to easily and without any problems to speak with them at breaks, before or after the session.
We can even photograph the defendants legally and with permission of the court during the transfer from the bus to the holding cells at court.
Why should we endanger our visas and work permits, and maybe even pose problems to the defendants by breaking rules when we don’t even have to?
You also have to understand the nature of international journalism. International journalism, local journalism and activism are completely different matters. In international journalism editors of international media will only accept stories in which there is for them an international angle visible. One may not like this aspect of the business of journalism, but that is how it is. Persuade or lobby editors sitting in Europe and in the US to pay more attention to lese majeste in Thailand, and you will see foreign correspondents doing more work on this issue automatically. But as long as editors decide this is not a major issue for their readers, foreign correspondents cannot do anything about it. Not everybody is a fool like me, working mostly for free or for book projects which also are not exactly profitable considering the time spent on the subject matter.
Therefore you see, for example, that the Chiranuch case, or the Joe Gordon case, gets much international attention, while others don’t. I have, for example sold my image of Chiranuch behind bars many times (and several times it was stolen as well), while my images of other accused under the 112 laws collect dust. Local mass media only very carefully reports on lese majeste cases. But international media cannot replace local media.
0
0
Gosh Andrew. You’re worse than a snake in a bag, squirming away there.
I can’t pull the line from the article where you wrote: “It is now certain AI/HRW are more responsible for Ah Kong’s death than the govt.”
Why? Because you conveniently failed to mention the fact that PTP were in power when Ah Kong was handed down what many see was the heaviest and most unfair LM sentence in history, and they were in power when he died in atrocious conditions in prison.
Rather than mention this fact at all, or mention that the PTP government which administers the prison in which this terminally ill man was allowed to die without proper medical attention, you instead launched into an attack AI and HRW.
You wrote: “How these conditions and the failure of the international human rights NGOs to monitor these conditions effectively impacted on the health of the recently deceased Ah Kong has yet to be ascertained.”
You then responded: “Amnesty and HRW are responsible for their actions and have been part of creating context where mistreatment of LM prisoners became possible.”
Still no mention of the government.
So the question remains, why the hall pass for PTP? Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on LM in general, and Ah Kong’s death in particular, than the government of the day?
Also of interest is how you have made a clear shift from writing in support of the red shirts, to writing in support of PTP. Why is this?
Given the amount of scrutiny which you apply to any other article written on Thailand’s political situation, one would imagine that you would have enough integrity to hold yourself up to the same level of scrutiny. Surely you’re not operating according to “double standards” are you?
0
0
#44 Andrew Spooner
“Furthermore, as a “journalist” (blogger is a better description), I am not even supposed to be in there interviewing anyone and, at one point, I was rumbled by the prison guards and, with the aid of a member of the prisoners’ support network, had to smuggle my notes out.”
You then state
“However, there are plenty of foreign “journalists” based full-time in Bangkok who could make a much better job of recording the views of the prisoners in full. Unfortunately, despite being only a 250baht taxi ride from the centre of Bangkok, very very few of the foreign media corps make it to the prison and speak to the prisoners.”
Well you may have a partial solution to your own implied question in your own post….. I have no idea which professional media workers might have succeeded in interviewing LM accused or convicted prisoners and I would applaud any responsible media worker who tried. Maybe some have tried and failed for the reason you outline above. Have you asked? Also bare in mind that, given the restrictions you have described, professional and accredited foreign correspondents here might have greater problems gaining access than an anonymous visitor on a tourist visa. Presumably you have to present your passport to the authorities as ID? …. This is a very good reason for those who are not accredited as journalists in Thailand to take advantage of their non-professional status as tourists to gain access.
What obstacles exactly would the authorities put in the way of either accredited journalists or human right workers visiting these prisoners? What exactly are the rules and how would you suggest the media attempt to get around them without being either refused, arrested or deported?
0
0
Nick
Thanks.
You’ve given the best argument yet for why I work the way I do.
Because I am based in the UK and not reliant on a work visa I can jump into the prison and interview the prisoners on an ad hoc basis.
Surely you’d support me operating in that way as I can get access that you can’t?
As for international journalism – the BBC Panorama team came from the UK to film an hour long documentary on Thailand and April/May 2010 last year. Do you have any idea or notion why they decided to do so and who was involved in persuading them?
0
0
Greg
Please refer to this – http://asiancorrespondent.com/82623/exclusive-questions-about-lese-majeste-and-ah-kong-asked-in-uk-parliament/
I had some role in getting these parliamentary questions raised – these questions & the answers have already been used to legitimise international criticism of the PT govt to a degree.
I’m pretty happy with my efforts in that matter and I’d hope you would be too.
0
0
Orinoco
It’s a well-established tactic for journalists to operate in the fashion I did when I visited the prisoners.
Here’s a story of the UK’s award-winning Channel 4 news team recently being arrested and deported from Bahrain for not being properly accredited.
http://www.channel4.com/news/channel-4-news-team-arrested-in-bahrain
If all we consumed were the views of “accredited journalists” many of whom, as you and Nick rightly pointed out are unable to always get close to sensitive stuff, then we’d only get half the story.
0
0
Greg
You write “Given the amount of scrutiny which you apply to any other article written on Thailand’s political situation, one would imagine that you would have enough integrity to hold yourself up to the same level of scrutiny. Surely you’re not operating according to “double standards” are you?”
Two points first of all.
1) I have answered all your questions politely and without rancour. Happy to continue to do so.
2) I can’t really answer questions about things I didn’t say, never meant and have never stated just because you think I did. Sorry.
I’m just a mere blogger Greg. I’m not that important. My work isn’t published in the mainstream press, I don’t seek public office nor do I claim impartiality or to represent any powerful international NGO like HRW. All I’ve done here is present some different voices. You seem very very upset about that.
0
0
Andrew, I’m not upset at all. Thanks for the concern, though.
“1) I have answered all your questions politely and without rancour. Happy to continue to do so.”
No you haven’t. But it’s good to know you are happy to do so. As such could you please begin by answering the simple, polite question which I have already posed a number of times but that you have not answered.
Do you seriously hold AI and HRW more to account on LM in general, and Ah Kong’s death in particular, than the government of the day?
Referring to other links and other articles is irrelevant, because my question relates directly to the scope, frame and tone of the above piece.
If it’s a simple matter that you chose not to mention it because it would have dampened the partial perspective on the matter that you wanted to present, then that’s all fine and dandy. But why not just say so?
0
0
Andrew, sorry to go off topic, but there’s something that may be of interest to you.
You say you are a PhD candidate. You do realise don’t you that the final stage of the process involves a “defence” of your thesis. That means you will have to go into a room with three (I think) leading academic experts in your area of research who will spend an intense five hours with you when they go through your work and try to pull it to pieces. That means they will ask a lot of questions quite possibly similar to the one’s which are posed here and you will need to answer them in a satisfactory manner. Offering links, answering questions that haven’t been asked, or saying you have answered a question which you have actually chosen to sidestep than answer directly, are tactics which will unlikely win on the day.
Perhaps you could use this forum to brush up on your skills a little.
0
0
Greg
I’ve asked you to point to the place where I claim that I “hold AI and HRW more to account on LM in general, and Ah Kong’s death in particular, than the government of the day”
You haven’t been able to do so.
I have responded with evidence showing you that I clearly don’t think that is the case. If you choose to ignore that what else can I say?
For certain if I’d researched the article after the death of Ah Kong I would’ve asked more searching questions about prison conditions. What I can say is that I did speak to Ah Kong on two occasions before his death and at both times he told me “conditions have improved.” That seems like a terrible irony now but it was what he said.
Also, for me, distributing the story that Kerry McCarthy MP raised the issue of Ah Kong’s death in the UK parliament was something I felt was far better than just blathering on about it on a blog somewhere.
0
0
#50 Andrew Spooner
“It’s a well-established tactic for journalists to operate in the fashion I did when I visited the prisoners.”
It certainly is and as I said, I think that those who are non accredited are in a good position to do what you did. I have no problem with it. I just wish you had written a better article.
What is odd is that you lambast the foreign correspondents who are accredited as journalists and are not in the same position as you are, as an accredited tourist, for not ‘taking the 250 baht ride’ to the relevant jail. Yet in the same post you describe a situation where it would actually be impossible for them to the job you are lambasting them for not doing… Don’t you think that is inconsistent and grossly unfair? Or did you just not think it through properly before you wrote it?…. It is after all a fairly obvious and glaring contradiction.
“If all we consumed were the views of “accredited journalists” many of whom, as you and Nick rightly pointed out are unable to always get close to sensitive stuff, then we’d only get half the story.”
Well it was you who introduced the subject with this line. “Unfortunately, despite being only a 250baht taxi ride from the centre of Bangkok, very very few of the foreign media corps make it to the prison and speak to the prisoners.”……
No one, accredited or otherwise, had criticised your actions in gaining access to these people so brutally incarcerated….. So why did you initiate this unsolicited attack on the international press for something that is, at present, simply a fact of life?
0
0
Greg
Thanks for your advice on how to secure a PhD.
Here, however, is probably a better read on the topic of “vivas”
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=406493
0
0
The army is threatening a military coup if the LM law is amended. The Democrats are filing a LM complaint against the DSI police chief for not charging Jatuporn with LM .
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/294732/dems-petition-against-dsi-chiefs
It should be pretty clear who should be held to account.
It seems to be a better idea to amend LM after the succession when it will be less controversial in the eyes of the public. Especially as doing it now is risking to spark a new cycle of violence that would likely get worse than what we saw in 2010.
0
0
Orinoco
It is self-evident that the Bangkok foreign media-corps, in the main, refuse to point out the restrictions they work under when reporting. And that many of them are not engaged enough to push at the limits of those restrictions and that they often place their own self-interest above that of doing their job and getting closer to the truth. Most are way too content with the comforts and status that Bangkok offers them. Those that do push the boundaries are soon expelled or hate-campaigned. I would also suggest that many have deliberately misrepresented the facts and have actively supported, despite bogus claims of impartiality, anti-democratic forces in Thailand. That’s my view, at least.
There’s that much new in that though or anything particular to Thailand.
0
0
Ok Andrew.
Even though you’ve refused to answer it in simple terms, you’ve made ir clear that you do believe the PT government should be held to account for the treatment of LM prisoners more than AI/HRW.
That’s rational.
Is it right that you failed to mention this in your article because you wanted to launch a stinging, unbalanced and disproportional attack on AI/HRW because that better serves your agenda.
0
0
#58 Andrew Spooner
“It is self-evident that the Bangkok foreign media-corps,… etc etc”
You are perfectly entitled to believe all these things (however ill informed)…. This still does not excuse you of lambasting them for not doing something you actually admit in the same post, and later on, it was never in their power to do…..
It is either dishonest or simply incompetent or both. You then further compound the dishonesty, incompetence or both with further smears and accusations….. This is distasteful, but is also symptomatic of the methods you consistently employ.
I have deep admiration for the coverage of politics in Thailand by some of the correspondents for whom you have such unwarranted contempt. Nick Nostitz whose work is published both here on New Mandala and in a series of books, has produced unrivaled and in depth on the ground coverage of both the Red and the Yellow movements. Work produced at some personal risk to himself and with a fine eye for facts and the respecting of them. Nirmal Gosh of the Straits Times produces thoughtful work with deep insight and deep humanity. Andrew Marshall formerly a freelancer for Time magazine and now a staffer for Reuters produced some of the most resourceful and perceptive coverage on the ground of the 2010 crisis….. I could go on…. There are others. Many correspondents have also been targeted with both physical threats and had Lese Majeste accusations filed against them by PAD political extremists and their henchmen….
And now you, a self appointed blogger, not only falsely accuse them of not doing something you know full well it was never in their power to do…. But you do not even have the good grace to admit fault and apologise for the unwarrented smear….. Shame on you.
0
0
About time! Progress!
Come on Abhisit and Yingluck – – Get together on this one. Get to work on, together really work on, amending the oppressive and regressive Thai Lese Majeste law. If Abhisit & Yingluck will join efforts in this LM law amendment, that my friends is the beginning of UNITY by addressing an unjust law, ergo JUSTICE!
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/295602/article-112-amendment-draft-submitted-to-house
0
0
And also Andrew ……..”Those that do push the boundaries are soon expelled or hate-campaigned.”
Which accredited foreign correspondent suffered this fate? Unless you are referring to the whole board of the FCCT and the LM charges leveled against them by shady agents for extreme forces most likely allied to the PAD?… It is true that there is real hatred for foreign journalists from extreme right wing elements in Thailand…. An unpleasantness you seem to echo with your own dissaproval for professional media workers doing their best to report under sometimes difficult circumstances.
0
0
Orinico
Can you point me to examples of where Thailand’s resident foreign media corps have mentioned the restrictions they routinely work under? For example that they can’t really write about the monarchy or visit and interview lese majeste prisoners for fear of having their accreditation taken from them. It’s pretty common for journalists to state that when reporting from places where restrictions have been imposed. I seriously can;t remember any mainstream foreign media doing that even though, as you and Nick go to great lengths to explain, everybody seems very aware of these restrictions.
I disagree about the “not being in their power” line. Sure, a journalist might have their accreditation revoked if they report something that the authorities might not like but that’s part of the game. If journalists just kowtowed to the authorities all the time then they’d not being holding power to account. So it’s the personal choice of the journalist involved – is accreditation, a visa to live in Bangkok etc more important than exposing an injustice and attempting to prevent human rights abuses? I guess it depends on where your own personal principles start and end.
And yeah, I agree some people do some very interesting work. That’s why I said “most” and not all. Although I still stand by my “most” comment.
I like some of Nick’s work, agree with you about Nirmal but find Andrew Marshall (not the Scottish one) a bit limited. And although he doesn’t report on politics much I admire and respect Andrew Drummond even though I realise he’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
In the Thai press I think Khao Sod and Matichon do some interesting work as well as does Voice TV. In fact I think if some of these outlets’ reporting was translated into English it would be a very interesting development. I think the Nation, Post are almost pure propaganda now and there is not much balance in how Thailand is reported in the English language.
Don’t know if you’ve ever noticed but nearly all bloggers are “self-appointed” – that’s the point.
Who was hate-campaigned? Dan Rivers.
Who was expelled? Shawn Crispin.
0
0
Greg
Yes, this article was a look at HRW/AI and a few other aspects ofLM and the political prisoners. I make no bones about that. I particularly wanted to look at the role of the “dual state” something which a lot of people recognise as a fair analysis but which nobody wants to acknowledge much. In my opinion these aspects have not had the coverage they might’ve and I wanted to balance that up a little bit.
In terms of the dual state I have heard it from several sources that the military, in alliance with the Dems and PAD, have been the main driving force behind ramping up LM over the last few years. It’s hard to prove but it certainly “rings true”. I’ve also heard from several sources that the army are behind the hate campaigns run by the likes of Social Sanctions etc. Again hard to prove but it makes sense. And I actually think AI and HRW have now been co-opted into the “dual state” in a supporting role. Given Ben Zawacki’s pro-royalist comments and collusions with the Democrat Party govt and Sunai’s pro-coup, pro-army and anti-Thaksin comments – comments, by the way, which he has never fully explained – I think there is some evidence of that. I also remember Sunai Phasuk – on the day a group of Red Shirts were handed down incredibly draconian prison sentences on obviously trumped up charges – circulating clearly doctored photos of flood aid toilets and claiming, without any other evidence, that they pointed to some form of Pheu Thai corruption. So much for human rights when you’ve got a political agenda, eh? And Thongchai’s thoughts on AI and HRW are damning and rightly so. They’ve been huge failures in Thailand.
The problem with AI and HRW is that they appear duplicitously politicised, refuse to explain themselves and are completely dismissive of any criticism. It’s not a good combination and they have lost the trust of the very people they are supposed to help – the victims of human rights abuses’ in Thailand.
Do I have an agenda? Sure. Do I attempt to hide that behind fake claims of objectivity? No. You can take or leave my work.
0
0
Andrew Spooner, you’re at it again: “Who was hate-campaigned? Dan Rivers. Who was expelled? Shawn Crispin.”
Could you pad the list out some more please. Your phrase used the simple tense, which implies some regularity. Your list will have to start back at one as Crispin was not expelled – see the piece by Saksith Saiyasombut from three weeks ago and you might be convinced your rhetoric is empty, again.
0
0
Come on Abhisit and Yingluck – – Get together on this one. Get to work on, together really work on, amending………………………..
Vichai, don’t get your hopes up, I think this is the type of unity we are going to see.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/295659/democrats-back-pad-rally
0
0
Andrew Spooner “the Bangkok foreign media-corps, in the main, refuse to point out the restrictions they work under when reporting”
How do you suggest they do it? Perhaps ‘blog’ type pieces in the Economist’s Banyan or the Guardian’s Comment is Free? A mostly empty space with a sentence explaining that a story about the Thailand’s monarchy was meant to appear here? A stock disclaimer with something about 112 in any piece that might want to mention the monarchy in any way?
Trouble with the last method is that it just ends up as a form of ‘tagging’ – journalists work under so many restrictions that you could devise more and more tags and wise crackers will soon be asking why don’t you just not bother writing the story and simply use a series of tags instead?
Or to borrow from Not the Nation: “our editors removed the following phrases: “when the leaf finally falls from the tree”, “whispers behind the wall” and “Lady Macbeth”, as well as all metaphors referring to death, generational succession, natural transformation, females in power, sibling preference, hidden corridors of power, short-sightedness, immaturity, organized systems of belief, or things happening that lead invariably to other things.
And I think you’re suggesting that journalists based in Thailand are not that afraid of 112 – ie the long stretch behind bars – but they’re more concerned with the visa troubles – am I correct in this interpretation?
Or might these journalists simply not want to always connect the dots all the way to the palace, in the way you seem motivated to always bring AI/HRW into so many discussions?
0
0
Andrew
What is your agenda then?
You make no fake claims of objectivity, fair enough. But do you make any fake claims that your “analysis” is an accurate picture of what is actually going on, or would it be more fair to push it into the realms of polemic, or dare one say, propaganda.
You comment on how you are willing to take on board comments from “sources” that “ring true” about certain political developments, but you insist that people provide hard evidence of anything which falls outside of the circle of light cast by your agenda.
“this article was a look at HRW/AI and a few other aspects of LM and the political prisoners.”
So the attack on HRW/AI was to be the focus, not the plight of political prisoners then?
You want to look at the concept of the “dual state”. That is an interesting issue. One which should be covered. A good place to start would be to define what you mean then look at the historical development.
Thailand has a history of state/military officials brutalising aspects of the citizenry with impunity. Below is a short and non-exhaustive list. Dates marked with “*” took place when Thaksin was in power. You already covered the issues with the Dems and the PAD two years ago, so I’ve just added comments from Dr T “to balance it up a bit”.
1973 – Killing of unarmed protesters
1976 – Killing of unarmed protesters
Late-70s – red barrel killings ~3,000
Late-70s/early-80s – anti-communist/-separatist death squads (Panlop Pinmanee, Seh Daeng)
1992 – Killing of unarmed protesters
*2003 – War on Drugs (2,600)
*2004 – Disappearance and murder of human rights lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit
*2004 – Khrue Sai mosque killing of all insurgents who some of whom were armed (80, 32 in the mosque alone)
*2004 – Tak Bai Killing of unarmed protesters (85 in one day)
2010 – Killing of unarmed protesters (90+)
Just as a reminder. Thaksin is the de facto leader and key financier of the PTP who you continually try to paint in a favourable light. Where do the brutal actions of his administration fit within your dual state theory?
It is also worth mentioning that you don’t cover the counter-insurgency in the south, and related political prisoners down there, in your article.
This, of course, is fine given that your piece deals with the establishment’s battle with Thaksin and the related supporters on both sides. But in any wider analysis of the dual state will you take into account the treatment of the ethnic Malays in the south. If any group has borne the brunt of being subject to consistent brutality of the Thai state, then it is them. That process started around 1897 or thereabouts.
If so, you may be interested in the following excerpt from a press release issued by the Justice for Peace Foundation that was issued this week.
“JPF calls on Thai Government to prevent enforced disappearances and ensure remedies for past disappearances
The Justice for Peace Foundation (JPF) today called on the Thai Government to ratify and comply with the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances in a report which documents the enforced disappearance of 59 people from throughout Thailand.
“JPF has found that enforced disappearances take place within a broader context of state violence which is used to silence dissenting views and to eliminate suspected criminals, outside of the rule of law”, said Angkhana Neelapaijit, JPF President.
JPF has personally documented 40 incidents of enforced disappearances involving 59 people. 12 people were from northern Thailand, five from western Thailand, seven from Isaan (north east), 33 from the deep south. JPF found that men from minority ethnic groups, such as Malayu or Hill Tribe communities, are disproportionately more vulnerable to enforced disappearances. In the cases documented by JPF, 94% of the victims were male and 86% from ethnic minorities.
JPF has found that two government policies directly contributed to increasing enforced disappearances in Thailand: the highly militarized counter-insurgency approach adopted in southern Thailand by various governments and the War on Narcotic Drugs beginning in 2003. In addition to these two policies, JPF has found that particular categories of people are vulnerable to enforced disappearances throughout Thailand. These are: (i) people with close relationships with officials and /or come into conflict with officials; (ii) activists engaged in human rights, political or corruption activism; (iii) witnesses of crimes or human rights violations; and (iv) migrants.”
You say AI/HRW have been a complete failure in Thailand. So, for the sake of argument, say they have been a failure over the last two years (your argument not mine), has all of their other work been a failure. Again looking to the South, AI/HRW along with ICJ, JPF and other NGOs tracked down all the illegal detention and torture sites in the south (I think found 100 give or take a few) and brought to light the enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, summary arrests. They dealt with issues such as Tak Bai, Khrue Sai, the Rohingya, the War on Drugs, they condemned violence from the police, military, and both red- and yellow-short protesters over the past few years. Has all of that been a failure?
Again, if you want to look at the vagaries of Thailand’s dual state, then you really have to go South. One does hope that the Yawi-speaking muslims aren’t so oppressed that they don’t even get a foot-up into the dual state.
0
0
#63 Andrew Spooner
“I disagree about the “not being in their power” line. Sure, a journalist might have their accreditation revoked if they report something that the authorities might not like but that’s part of the game.”
No…. They wouldn’t be given entry to the jail in the first place would they?…. So not much point in them taking that ‘250 baht ride’ is there?….. So this particular piece of sly evasion on your part in trying to side step the issue, once again, and you are failing to take responsibility for your own inaccurate, ill thought out and ludicrously declamatory statements. This is lame, even for you…..
“Who was hate-campaigned? Dan Rivers.”
As I said, so was pretty much the whole foreign media corps by extremist PAD supporters. A hate campaign you appear to be echoing here. The whole board of the FCCT (including one poster here) had LM charges leveled against them. Many have received threats. None were expelled and none were driven out. So despite the unpleasantness many have endured from extremist PAD and (although far less so) extremist pro Thaksin Red shirts…. You continue to lambast them in a way that really does have echoes of the kind of continual and often unfair targeting many actually received from the PAD….. They just can’t win according to your logic can they?.
“Who was expelled? Shawn Crispin.”
He was issued with an expulsion order under the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra. He is still here. As you may already know, Thaksin Shinawatra is no lover of the free press.
0
0
#63 Andrew Spooner , “but find Andrew Marshall (not the Scottish one) a bit limited.”……
Both Andrew Marshalls are entirely Scottish and both do excellent work in their own Pictish ways, although the kilted one from the glens is, suitably, rather more hirsute than ‘tother one ….. Do you ever actually check your facts?
0
0
Greg
Thanks for your comments on the South.
There are something other details about the South and the War on Drugs I’d love to write about but due to reporting restrictions I am unable to do so.
(Jon Wright – I think that’s how you do it).
0
0
Orinico
“No…. They wouldn’t be given entry to the jail in the first place would they?”
It’s pretty easy to visit people at the prison. Next time I’m in Bangkok I’d be happy for you (or anyone else) to come along if you want. My email address is [email protected].
It’s not, despite your view on the matter, illegal in Thailand to visit people in prison.
I must confess, though, that when I went to visit Da Torpedo I was denied entry. This was the only instance of me having some kind of difficulty visiting anyone.
However, what I did was give my Thai colleague a few short questions which gained at least something of an interview. http://bit.ly/nJdXYz
Here’s what she said about HRW and AI –
Q “How do you feel about the support from international human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?”
A “I am disappointed and sad as I expected a lot from them.”
I should also point out that even if journalists and human rights workers are unable to visit the prisoners directly it is still possible to monitor conditions to a degree by speaking to relatives or support groups.
We’ve been speaking to LM prisoners, relatives, support groups and the like for the last 2years and have consistently been made aware of health problems, mistreatment etc. We’ve also seen medical reports, spoken to doctors, lawyers during that time etc. We’ve been able to glean a massive amount of information without ever stepping near the prison.
Every single one of those people said that they never had ANY contact with HRW or AI and that HRW or AI never reached out to them. We managed to find many of this contacts from our “borough in London” and found them all very approachable, eager to talk. Also nearly all of them said that hardly any foreign journalists had been in contact regarding the plight of the prisoners.
0
0
Orinico
Apologies – I never knew the other Andrew Marshall (not the Singapore one) was Scottish as well.
Thanks for the information.
However, you were still able to work out which one I was referring to so no real harm done.
0
0
Orinico
I’m just taking your advice and doing some fact-checking and wanted to find out if you are actually, in fact, Dan White?
There’s just something about the tone of your writing that makes me think you are and I wouldn’t want to have the wrong impression.
Any thoughts?
0
0
# 72 Andrew Spooner
“It’s not, despite your view on the matter, illegal in Thailand to visit people in prison.”
Indeed …. Nor was that the point as you very well know. And I have visited many of them myself in both Bang Kwang and Klong Prem. But as you have already pointed out, this is a rather more complex issue when visiting LM accused prisoners especially if one is a journalist with that designation recorded in one’s passport. Yet more side stepping Andrew?
“I should also point out that even if journalists and human rights workers are unable to visit the prisoners directly it is still possible to monitor conditions to a degree by speaking to relatives or support groups.”
Yes… Are you suggesting you are the only person who has ever done this?
“and have consistently been made aware of health problems, mistreatment etc. ”
Good. Well done.
“Also nearly all of them said that hardly any foreign journalists had been in contact regarding the plight of the prisoners.”
Just because your source is not another’s source, does not mean that another does not have a source. Nor was that your original gripe when delivering your ill informed ‘250 baht ride’ swipe at the foreign press…. As with all your arguments, this particular argument is subject to ever changing ‘shift’ as you are challenged on it, or asked to stand by it.
#73 “no real harm done.”
None at all…. Although in my experience implying that a Scotsman is English is about as risky as trying to snog an angry hippopotamus…. And lets face it, we have all tried to do that on the odd occasion……
#74 “There’s just something about the tone of your writing that makes me think you are and I wouldn’t want to have the wrong impression.”
I am Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco to exactly the same degree that you are ‘Pro Democracy John Smith’ or the second ‘Asian Journo’…… As I am sure you know some spineless buffoon took it upon themselves, of late, to take advantage of the intellectual hospitality of Messrs Farrelly and Walker to assume the names of other posters and then demean any possible debate by attempting to score silly points with endless sweaty bla bla under their cuckooed names….. Admittedly ‘Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco’ is an exceedingly common name, so there is still room for some genuine confusion should a second ‘Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco’ appear out of the ether….. I would then have to call myself, ‘The Artist Formerly Known as Orinoco Woof Woof Blanco’ in order to distinguish myself from the throng.
0
0
@#68: There’s a better list of the state’s remarkable capacity for murdering its own people: http://thaipoliticalprisoners.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/60-years-of-oppression-in-thailand.pdf
That file is nicked from Time Up Thailand. It states: “since 1947, of close to 11 000 people who, in one way or other, were assassinated in their struggle for democratic representation. For six decades the power elite in Thailand has done all it can to cover-up the trail of extra-judicial political killing it oversees with impunity, and it must be understood that the figure of 11 000 is probably less than half, or even only one third, of the actual level of sacrifice.”
0
0
“There are something other details about the South and the War on Drugs I’d love to write about but due to reporting restrictions I am unable to do so.”
That’s interesting Andrew, but would you mind answering the questions?
1. Thaksin is the de facto leader and key financier of the PTP who you continually try to paint in a favourable light. Where do the brutal actions of his administration fit within your dual state theory?
Given the Shinawattra/Damapong clans’ both have/have had family members as senior military and police top brass (not to mention all the military men who joined PT in 2009/10), and that in any given dual state the military and police (often in conjunction with paramilitary groups etc) form the sharp end of the state which metes out violence on, and represses, sectors of the civilian population, can governments run by these families be anything other than active agents of the repressive state apparatus?
2. In any wider analysis of the dual state will you take into account the treatment of the ethnic Malays in the south? Do they count as political prisoners? Will you ask them how they have been treated under successive governments?
3. You say AI/HRW have been a complete failure in Thailand. So, for the sake of argument, say they have been a failure over the last two years (your argument not mine), has all of their other work been a failure. Again looking to the South, AI/HRW along with ICJ, JPF and other NGOs tracked down all the illegal detention and torture sites in the south (I think found 100 give or take a few) and brought to light the enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, torture, summary arrests. They dealt with issues such as Tak Bai, Khrue Sai, the Rohingya, the War on Drugs, they condemned violence from the police, military, and both red- and yellow-short protesters over the past few years. Has all of that been a failure?
0
0
By the way Andrew, you’ve just said:
“Pleased Jiew’s sentence was lenient however my real concerns still lie with Surachai & Da Torpedo who are ignored by media and HR NGOs.”
“If the Pheu Thai government have been blamed for the harsh sentences handed down to Ah Kong and others should they now be applauded for the leniency shown to Jiew?”
AP reported, “The case was seen as a test of freedom of expression in Thailand. She was the first webmaster prosecuted under tough cyber laws enacted after a 2006 coup.”
HRW called the prosecution of the first webmaster under the Computer Crimes Act a “chilling message to webmasters and Internet companies.”
So do you see this prosecution as lenient? Were you not rooting for a “not guilty” verdict?
0
0
Greg,
What does the government have to do with court outcomes? Are you suggesting that the PM or the parliament have the power to determine or influence the outcome of LM trials? I’m confused.
Regarding the War on Drugs, remember that the Privy Council was calling for the execution of 60,000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhumibol#2003_War_on_Drugs
Even when a PM is responsible for human right violations, it can be because of pressure from forces that are difficult to resist.
0
0
Chris
Andrew was the one who asked is PT should be praised for Jiew’s “lenient” sentence. Lenience implies guilt, which I though a very odd position for a such as steadfast proponent of democracy and free speech as Andrew to take. That’s why I asked him the question. If you think that in Thailand the government/PM has or should have no influence over court verdicts and LM perhaps you would like to ask Andrew why he goes on about it all the time regarding Abhisit “the butcher of Bangkok” and the Democrats.
Andrew did mention how Shawn Crispin was kicked out of Thailand. This was along with Rodney Tasker from FEER. Shawn has repeatedly stated in public that Thaksin was the one behind that move.
“Even when a PM is responsible for human right violations, it can be because of pressure from forces that are difficult to resist.”
Hmm. Not convinced by that one. Especially in this case where Thaksin clearly positioned himself as the architect of the policy and described the police battling with drug dealers as “white knights”.
If a member of the Privy Council called Abhisit and called for 9,000 red shirts to be shot dead at Ratchaprasong on May 19, and Abhisit managed to whittle the number down to 90, would you consider that to be acceptable?
As far as I am aware, only four Thai officials have been found guilty of offences related to some form of human right abuses. Those were Somchai Wongsawat, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, Pol Gen Patcharawat Wongsuwon and Pol Lt-Gen Suchart Muankaew. This was over the Oct 7 2008 crackdown on PAD prosesters outside of parliament.
The offences were for malfeasance etc. Were these men guilty, perhaps. Were the charges politically motivated? 100%. But the fact that in the course of Thai history no senior officials, top brass etc have been found guilty of any of the horrendous and extensive human rights abuses is a telling story. The rich and power operate with impunity. They are literally above or beyond the law.
Things will not improve until people are prosecuted. Such a list should include the PAD and UDD leaders who organised and instigated violence, Thaksin, the coup makers, any of the Democrat government, army/police top brass who were complicit in the indiscriminate killing of unarmed civillians, those involves in Tak Bai, Khrue Sai, the treatment of Rohingyas, and ongoing counter-insurgency operations in the South. We can add to that those involved in the 73, 76, 92 massacres, the red barrel and the anti-communist/-separatist death squads and, of course, the War on Drugs.
So to return to you initial point. No. The PM must be held accountable, especially for policies which are directly/indirectly result in mass killings.
0
0
Ralph #76.
For six decades the power elite in Thailand has done all it can to cover-up the trail of extra-judicial political killing it oversees with impunity, and it must be understood that the figure of 11 000 is probably less than half, or even only one third, of the actual level of sacrifice.
Would seem that Thailand’s “power elite” has been a bit lax in killing off their opponents when compared to the “power elite” of their neighbors to the East and North. I seem to remember those “power elite” were supposed to be about a “struggle for democratic representation” and look how that turned out.
0
0
Greg,
I can agree with most things in your reply.
In Western democracies, the army is under the control of a civilian government. That makes the chain of responsibility and accountability clear.
I’m not sure if that is the case in Thailand. Is the Thai army under the government, the palace, or does it act independently? Whatever it is, accountability should be held accordingly.
0
0
“Is the Thai army under the government, the palace, or does it act independently? Whatever it is, accountability should be held accordingly.”
Probably a mix of all three, depending on what day it is…
Do remember though that during the War on Drugs the vast majority of extra-judicial killings were carried out by police and the PM of the day was an ex-police officer, his ex-brother-in-law is the current chief of police, the Royal Thai Police are known to be very loyal to Thaksin.
0
0
Got it John Smith, murder is now relative….
0
0
I don’t want to get into any argument about the war on drugs, but Bangkok Pundit wrote a piece on it that you may find interesting.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/20405/2275-where-did-this-number-come-from/
0
0
#83 Greg Lowe
“the Royal Thai Police are known to be very loyal to Thaksin.”
This is certainly true. In the south near Trang I know one police officer from a fiercely Democrat (verging on PAD supporting) family who supports PT and voted PT to the horror of his relatives. His reasoning being that ‘Under Thaksin the police walked tall’…. Interpret that how you will. Many of his colleagues in the same area are of of the same thinking according to him. In most parts of the country the ordinary cops tend to be vehemently pro-Thaksin and indeed they are often happy to initiate conversations about the highly regarded Lt Pl Colonel. The site of Arisaman Pongruangrong dangling from a rope as the police ‘bungled’ a fairly straightforward arrest was a fairly clear indication of where the loyalty of those particular arresting police officers’ loyalties lay…. And as with so many things here it comes down, largely, to an issue of patronage.
0
0
> “Under Thaksin the police walked tall”
There’s a dichotomy here. The police that let the RedShirt leader escape from the hotel room in Bangkok during the 2010 troubles were ‘under Thaksin’ and the majority of observers were thinking the police were walking very short that day.
0
0
Chris L makes a useful link to Bangkok Pundit who saw the issue. HRW has since inflated the figure they use.
The most interesting account I have seen is by Michael Connors (http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Data/FileUpload/296/WP102_09_MConnors.pdf). He actually examines the data from the 2008 interim report by the committee appointed to investigate and which has become the HRW source. It stated that there “were 2559 cases totaling 2873 deaths (2559 cases) from February to April” 2003. HRW now regularly cites something like the 2800 figure. Connors adds that: “drug related cases accounted for 1187 totaling 1370 murders. In 29 cases suspects had been arrested, while 47 suspects were at large. Of the remaining 1111 cases, no perpetrators had been identified.”
It is telling that HRW and others cite the 2800 figure rather than the 1370 figure.
It seems they continue to make the mistake they made earlier and that was the subject of the BP report.
0
0
I am following this thread breathlessly, as I hear that L. Gaga is about to comment.
0
0
Greg,
In your last few comments you have asked me several quite disparate and complex questions that require, in my view, quite lengthy and detailed responses. You’ve also levelled a couple of quite nasty allegations at me that I consider to border on smears. No matter, I’m happy to take it on the chin.
What I will say in response is that I’m happy to be interviewed by you should you think my thoughts on those issues are of such importance to you and so that I am allowed a fair and equitable opportunity to rebut what I consider your false and malicious insinuations.
You can email me at [email protected] with suggestions how you want to conduct the interview. Face to face at a neutral venue is always my preference. And, of course, as is the usual practice. I’d like to know where you’d seek to publish this interview beforehand (I have noticed you have a blog – but it seems moribund, with little published there for a year or so – happy for it to any interview to be published there).
That offer also stands for your good friend Dan White should he wish to interview me on a separate occasion.
Unfortunately, here, on this thread, I won’t be responding to/rebutting any more of your smears, allegations, insinuations or questions as I don’t feel, given your repetitive tone it makes much sense to do so.
I do look forward to your correspondence and to meeting the challenge of your questions in the future.
0
0
A certain member of the Privy Council should to be factored into any discussion of the dual state.
He has had a bit to say on both the ‘war on drugs’ (see http://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/prem-and-the-war-on-drugs/ )
and the ‘southern insurgency’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency#National_Reconciliation_Commission )
0
0
#90 Andrew Spooner [to Greg Lowe]
“In your last few comments you have asked me several quite disparate and complex questions that require, in my view, quite lengthy and detailed responses.”
Its OK Andrew…. Answering complex or even disparate questions is the whole point of the exercise and is, I imagine, one of the main reasons New Mandala exists…. Not quite sure why you would request to be ‘interviewed’ as if you were Desmond Tutu or something….. Seems a little bit odd. Are you having a Lady Diana moment? Should we call Martin Bashir?
0
0
Dan White
In response to your comment #92
Actually it’s been pointed out to me by one of NM’s moderators that NM’s “preference is not for the constant back-and-forth between post authors and commentators.”
Rather than be accused of ducking yours and Greg’s questions – obviously my responses to them must be of great concern to you both, hence your repetitive, lengthy and detailed pursuance of me here – I thought I’d offer you an opportunity to discuss these matters with me at another point.
And this WILL be my last comment here.
😛
0
0
#93 Andrew Spooner
“preference is not for the constant back-and-forth between post authors and commentators.”
Of course… The preference would actually be that, as author of the piece, you answered the questions put to you concisely and honestly since you chose to publish the piece in the first place. This is something that you have consistently failed to do at some length and the expense of a great many words most of which have involved both red herrings and your usual legions of straw men…… Bop phen yang……
0
0
Thanks Andrew
I have no interest in interviewing you. The fact that you conveniently decide to duck answering relevant, simple and direct questions that address the issue of bias in your writing is telling.
I have made no smears. I have clearly stated that your work and general commentary has made a clear shift in support of the Phue Thai party from your previous key focus on the red shirts.
For me, the fact that you yesterday asked if the PTP should be praised for Chiranuch’s “lenient” sentencing — and the fact that you did not condem the sentence which found her guilty and sets a precedence for future cases under the CCA, a move which even Google has severely criticised — speaks volumes.
While you have yet to explain the motivations and aims of your self-professed but unspecified “agenda”, your writing and commentary in this thread and elsewhere show that you are now more concerned with jumping to the defence of PTP before the red shirts and LM prisoners.
How curious.
0
0
Amen
0
0
There have been several attempts to bring the thread back to topic. Here’s another, but as a question: In the Bkk Post (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/295827/google-leads-verdict-criticism), there is criticism mentioned by AI and HRW of the verdict on Chiranuch. Has anyone seen any criticism of the verdict against Surachai? He’s received a total of 25 years. Any links to news that have comments by HRW and AI would be welcomed.
0
0
Bor phen yang, not Bop
0
0
#98 “Bor phen yang, not Bop”
Leah, have you ever seen Thai road signs in English, let alone English menus in Lao?….. Your hopes of exact transliterative uniformity are a wee bit on the ‘ivory tower’ side I am afraid…. How many English ways are there of spelling Isarn?…. Issan?…. Isan?…. Bor?
0
0
While a bop vs a bor might be critical for some and others might be very frustrated by this thread, I am still interested to know: (1) which human rights NGOs have expressed concern regarding Surachai Danwattananusorn’s sentencing; and (2) to add another question, is his total of 25 years (prior to reductions) a record for LM in Thailand?
0
0
Ralph, a quick google on Surachai reveals an article by Human Rights Watch dated February 24, 2012.
Below are the first three pars:
NEW YORK — Thai courts are refusing bail for people charged with the crime of lese majeste for apparently political reasons, Human Rights Watch said today. Thai law criminalizes the expression of peaceful opinions deemed offensive to the institution of the monarchy.
In all 12 cases of lese majeste that the public prosecutor has filed against supporters of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, known as the Red Shirts, since 2009, bail has been denied, Human Rights Watch said. By contrast, the leader of the pro-monarchy People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), Sondhi Limthongkul, was charged with lese majeste on July 5, 2010, and granted bail the same day.
“Bail appears to be systematically denied to members of the Red Shirts while they await trial for lese majeste,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Denial of bail seems to be for punishment rather than for justified reasons.”
So HRW says the refusal to bail red shirts on LM charges seemed to be politically motivated.
The story goes on to outline the cases of specific prisoners, including Surachai, Joe Gordon, Somyot Preuksakasemsuk — they expressed concern pre-trial detention was being used as a way to mistreat him.
HRW’s Brad Adams said: ““The glaring injustices of the lese majeste cases are being made even worse by the denial of bail and long periods of pre-trial detention.”
So it appears that HRW has not been silent on this matter.
The full story is here: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/02/24/thailand-courts-denying-bail-lese-majeste-cases
0
0
ralph k
not sure if HRW or AI have done any press release on Surachai. Bangkok’s media have gone missing on his case as well.
HRW have distorted numbers on War on Drugs for a long time and failed to mention the royal and wider elite support for that. some sources suggest the war on drugs was initially ordered by King himself. This may explain why no proper investigation on war on drugs took place when Thaksin was removed from power and army, Dems, had power to investigate.
HRW/AI have done some good work in South but have failed to mention Thai Queen’s role there. in 2005 she called for buddhists to arm themselves against local Muslims, & tried to implement plan to force Muslims off their lands. her action greatly inflamed the situation and upset local people.
then we could get to who directly benefits from war in South. all soldiers there are on full, 24-7, overtime. & presence of an armed conflict means that army retain a relevance with senior officers taking their regular cut on arms procurement and like. The fake bomb detectors were obvious example of this with many of these bogus devices being employed in South & with senior officers taking a nice hefty slice of proceeds.
these documented widely known aspects rarely get mentioned as some of it might be LM and rest of it don’t fit in with agenda of committed anti-Thaksin activists such as HRW’s Sunai Phasuk and Amnesty’s pro-royalist, Ben Zawacki. Other expats, whose privileged existence is completely dependent on lack of democracy & social justice in Thailand, eagerly join in with pushing this line as it fits their self-interest. maybe thought of their maids and pool cleaners actually having a say in who runs the country is just too terrifying for them?
0
0
Here’s another statement from HRW issued after Ah Gong’s sentencing.
(New York) – A Thai court’s sentencing of a 61-year-old man to 20 years in prison for sending four text messages illustrates the misuse by successive Thai governments of laws intended to protect the monarchy, Human Rights Watch said today. Thailand’s lese majeste laws should be amended to prevent unnecessary restrictions on freedom of expression.
On November 23, 2011, a Bangkok criminal court sentenced Ampon Tangnoppakul, 61, to 20 years in prison for sending four SMS messages in 2010 that were considered offensive to the Queen and the institution of the monarchy. The messages were sent to a secretary of Abhisit Vejjajiva, who was then the prime minister. Ampon was arrested by Crime Suppression Division police on August 3, 2010, after a complaint was made by Somkiat Krongwattanasuk, the secretary who received the message.
“The severity of penalties being meted out for lese majeste offenses in Thailand is shocking,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The new government seems to be responding to questions about its loyalty to the monarchy by filing countless lese majeste charges.”
It goes on to give a brief history of recent LM charges and highlights the crackdown on freedom of expression under Abhisit’s administration.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/02/thailand-end-harsh-punishments-lese-majeste-offenses
From Amnesty International’s press release on November 23, 2011:
“This sentence clearly infringes on freedom of expression,” said Benjamin Zawacki, Amnesty International’s Thailand researcher. “Amphon is a political prisoner.”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/thailand-%E2%80%98repressive%E2%80%99-20-year-sentence-text-message2011-11-23
Amnesty on Thammasat Uni’s initial ban on Nitirat meetings:
Thammasat University’s decision to ban from its campus an academic group working on reform of the lèse majesté law constitutes a violation of the human rights principle of academic freedom and should be revoked, Amnesty International said today.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA39/001/2012/en/87c9f233-dfd9-410d-8ade-d2a56456cde9/asa390012012en.html
If you scroll down this page, you’ll see AI statements demanding the release of Chiranuch, the need to respect human rights, a call for the military to “stop the use of reckless violence” against anti-government protesters, etc. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/thailand?page=1
Not quite the silence Andrew has claimed.
0
0
ralph k
can;t find any comment from HRW or AI about recent prison sentence of surachai.
some stuff from feb though. maybe they missed verdict?
0
0
# 102 Andew Spooner
“maybe thought of their maids and pool cleaners actually having a say in who runs the country is just too terrifying for them?”
I am an expat these days…. I have neither a maid, nor a pool nor a person to clean it…. Am I too, complicit in this terrible conspiracy with HRW and AI to deny “democracy & social justice” to the downtrodden people in Thailand….. All in order that I can imperialistically put petrol in my amart-like moped?
0
0
ralph k
interesting that Amnesty made no comment regarding imprisonment of Da Torpedo either. many feel zawacki’s comments at the time actually showed support for imprisonment.
interesting that both Amnesty and HRW ramped up their anti-LM campaign when govt changed to PT even tho’ analysts of calibre of Streckfuss state actual prosecutions were lower than during Dem Party time.
0
0
Greg @ 101: Thanks, but you appear to have missed the question, which was: which human rights NGOs have expressed concern regarding Surachai Danwattananusorn’s sentencing? I am interested in sentencing a la the comments by HRW, AI and others on Chiranuch.
Thanks anonymouse for your several comments. I agree that it appears that Surachai’s sentencing (and his case in general) has been downplayed or overlooked by media, with remarkably little attention by the foreign media.
Surachai seems to have received the record LM sentence to date and he is sick and old (a decade older than Amphon), and Somyot’s case is due for a verdict shortly. Will his verdict garner media attention in the way that Chiranuch’s case has?
0
0
Ralph… a fair point. I couldn’t find any direct comments relating to Surachai’s sentence either, though the HRW statement was quoted in the context of his sentence in The Guardian and other news outlets.
0
0
Weird that I was attacked for writing this piece when it was published and now AFP have just put out an article that mirrors almost everything I wrote here. Seems as though my journalism was pretty much spot on.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jG1_z8WM3tNbwhxw5ceqI77glENA?docId=CNG.392d5578e0e2c7d8a0f7efa54d2c061b.4a1
0
0
For all the little Nazis on the Thai Visa website, who say that the lese majeste law in Thailand is exactly the same as in all other monarchies, just watch the video link below ( starting at 06.01) of Robert Smith, leader of The Cure, saying just a few days ago on TV , that the British royals are just a bunch of fucking idiots who have never done anything in their life, and that he hates royalties.
He is fine, no one is ever going to file charges against him and he will never spend 15 years in jail after a closed door trial , in which the defendant is guilty without without ever having to prove the offense.
How’s that for a difference ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAObCHEjZrs
0
0
‘Little Nazis’ indeed!
That would make Thai Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung a ‘big Nazi’ then because he pursues LM infractors with such zeal and purpose. And Chalerm’s bosses Yingluck and Thaksin would be what then . . . Nazi Supremos, right?
0
0
As a German, I would appreciate if you left the “Nazis” out of your comments. This usage is very offensive indeed.
0
0
Considering there have been people poisoning the reputation of Royals in Asia for nearly 5000 years it is good to have strong laws to protect these chosen people. For 4500 an Chinese Emporer explained he is just God’s chosen caretaker to protect his Kingdom part of the world to ensure his citizen have a happy and peaceful life. He then went on to explain he was not the supreme power of all he is just the chosen caretaker sent by the one God who is the supreme power over everything that exists. Don’t believe poisonous tales about Royals 99.9% are untrue
0
0